Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Autobiographic Narratives As Data in App
Autobiographic Narratives As Data in App
ANETA PAVLENKO
Temple University
the insider’s view of the processes of language learning, attrition, and use.
Secondly, they highlight new connections between various learning
processes and phenomena, and, in doing so, point to new directions for
future research. Thirdly, autobiographic narratives constitute a valuable
information source for historic and diachronic sociolinguistic research in
contexts where other sources are scarce (Nekvapil 2003).
Three types of autobiographic narratives are commonly examined in the
study of sociolinguistics of bilingualism and SLA. Diaries and journals, written
by L2 learners either spontaneously or in response to teachers’ and
researchers’ requests represent the first source of information about learners’
beliefs and feelings (Bailey 1980, 1983; Norton 2000; Ogulnick 1998; Polanyi
1995; Schmidt and Frota 1986; Schumann, F. 1980; Schumann, F. and
J. Schumann 1977; Schumann, J. 1997). The second source, rapidly gaining
in popularity, are linguistic biographies and autobiographies, that is life histories
that focus on the languages of the speaker and discuss how and why these
languages were acquired, used, or abandoned. In the European tradition,
these narratives, also known as Sprachbiographien, are collected through life
history interviews (Čmejrková 2003; Franceschini 2003; Franceschini and
Miecznikowski 2004; Meng 2001; Meng and Protassova 2002; Nekvapil 2000,
2003; Protassova 2004). In the North American tradition, they are collected
through interviews (Heinz 2001; Kanno 2003; Kouritzin 2000; Mkhonza
1995; Vitanova 2004, 2005) or as classroom assignments (Hinton 2001;
Pavlenko 2003; Tse 2000a). To avoid influencing speakers’ responses through
elicitation procedures, researchers appeal to a third type of narratives,
published linguistic autobiographies, also known as language memoirs
(Besemeres 2002, 2004; Granger 2004; Kinginger 2004; Pavlenko 1998,
2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2004; Pavlenko and Lantolf 2000; Schumann, J. 1997;
Tse 2000b). Let us examine now what approaches have been taken to the
analysis of these narratives.
Subject reality
The largest group of studies examine subject reality. These studies commonly
appeal to some form of thematic or content analysis to examine L2 learners’
166 AUTOBIOGRAPHIC NARRATIVES AS AL DATA
thoughts and feelings about the language learning process (Bailey 1980,
1983; Caratini-Soto 1997; Norton 2000; Ogulnick 1998, 1999; Polanyi 1995;
Rosa 1997; Schumann, F. 1980; Schumann, F. and J. Schumann 1977;
Schmidt and Frota 1986; Tse 2000a), bilinguals’ attitudes toward their
respective languages (Heinz 2001; Pavlenko 1998, 2003; Pavlenko
and Lantolf 2000; Treichel 2004; Yelenevskaya and Fialkova 2003), and
heritage language speakers’ views about language maintenance and ethnic
identification (Hinton 2001; Tse 2000b).
The main analytical step in content and thematic analysis is the coding of
narratives according to emerging themes, trends, patterns, or conceptual
categories (Strauss and Corbin 1990). For instance, Francine Schumann
(1980), interested in the influence of personal variables on the acquisition of
a second language, identified ten such variables in the analysis of diaries she
and her husband kept in Tunisia and Iran: transition anxiety, nesting
patterns, reactions to pedagogical techniques, motivation for choice of
language learning materials, desire to maintain one’s own language learning
agenda, eavesdropping versus speaking as a language learning strategy,
competition versus cooperation, the role of the expatriate community in
hindering the learning process, and the disadvantages of being a woman and
an English-speaker.
This list illustrates both advantages and disadvantages of content analysis.
The key advantage of this approach is the sensitivity to recurrent motifs
salient in participants’ stories and thus to themes that are important to L2
learners but may not have been reflected in previous scholarship. Schumann
(1980), for instance, was the first to point to the importance of gender in
access to linguistic resources, an issue that until then remained invisible in
the field of SLA. On the other hand, we can also see that the factors listed
reflect different areas of concern (attitudes, language learning strategies,
social factors, etc.) and are of a different nature (external vs. internal) and
different degree of generalization and abstraction (e.g. the spread of English
in Iran vs. nesting patterns, that is, one’s preference for comfortable
surroundings). Putting them together in a list may qualify as a preliminary
analytical step, but not as analysis, because we are left with a multitude of
questions: What exactly do these factors reflect? How are they linked to each
other? How generalizable are they?
These questions stem from five major weaknesses of content and thematic
analyses. The first is the lack of a theoretical premise, which makes it unclear
where conceptual categories come from and how they relate to each other.
The second is the lack of established procedure for matching of instances to
categories. The third is the overreliance on repeated instances, which may
lead analysts to overlook important events or themes that do not occur
repeatedly or do not fit into preestablished schemes. The fourth is an
exclusive focus on what is in the text, whereas what is excluded may
potentially be as or even more informative. The fifth and perhaps the most
problematic for applied linguistics is the lack of attention to ways in which
ANETA PAVLENKO 167
others (cf. Granger 2004; Pavlenko 2003) and in making sense of their life
experiences (cf. Treichel 2004; Yelenevskaya and Fialkova 2003).
Life reality
The second group of studies are those interested in both subject and life
reality. In the North American tradition many of these studies appeal to
thematic analysis to pinpoint repeated events and commonalities in L2
learners’ and users’ experiences (Calvin 1999; Caratini-Soto 1997; Dykman
1999; Hinton 2001; Kanno 2003; Menard-Warwick 2004; Mkhonza 1995;
Norton 2000; Pavlenko 2001c; Rosa 1997; Santana 1999).
Several studies display awareness of the interplay between content,
context, and form and pay attention to the uses of causality markers,
attribution, inference, and justification, and to narrators’ positioning with
regard to ideologies of language and identity that have currency in their
environments (Kanno 2003; Menard-Warwick 2004; Mkhonza 1995; Norton
2000; Pavlenko 2001c). Kanno (2003) also considers evidence of
reinterpretation visible in contradictions and discrepancies between different
tellings of the same experience.
Other studies treat narratives ‘as observation notes and transcripts’
(Tse 2000b: 191) and thus as facts, rather than discursive constructions.
This treatment disregards the interpretive nature of storytelling, that is the
fact that the act of narration unalterably transforms its subject and any
further interpretation interprets the telling and not the event in question.
Importantly, narrators do not necessarily consciously ‘distort the truth’,
rather they use the act of narration to impose meaning on experience, so
that for instance in a diary entry the ‘written text constructs, narrows down,
clarifies, and focuses the truth of the event in quite a different manner than
it was lived at the time’ (Kramsch and Lam 1999: 59–60).
One example of such reductive treatment can be found in Hinton’s (2001)
discussion of 250 linguistic autobiographies of Asian-American college
students. The paper is divided into two parts, each consisting mostly of
quotes interspersed with brief commentary. The first part summarizes students’
experiences (e.g. language shock, first-language attrition, involuntary code-
mixing, poor communication between generations) and the second identifies
factors influencing first language maintenance and attrition (the use of
language at home, peer group pressure, pride in one’s heritage, drive to
assimilate, etc.). The major contribution of the study is in letting the reader hear
the real voices of members of the 1.5 generation who experience linguistic
discrimination and are in the process of losing their native languages.
At the same time, presenting textual reality as an experiential one, this
study suffers from two major problems. On the one hand, by treating
accounts as facts, the researcher takes a questionable shortcut to the study of
sociolinguistic phenomena. It is well known that people’s descriptions of
their own and others’ linguistic behaviors and competencies do not always
ANETA PAVLENKO 169
Text reality
The third and the most recent group of studies in the field are those
concerned with text reality. These studies examine how bilinguals construct
170 AUTOBIOGRAPHIC NARRATIVES AS AL DATA
and on her analysis of the creative and academic writings she produced since
she began to study her L2 English.
Importantly, I do not argue that repeated narratives in all of the languages
of the speakers have to be collected on all occasions and for all purposes.
Rather, I aim to highlight unique possibilities open to researchers working
with bi- and multilinguals, to expose the implications of the choices they
make, and to emphasize the importance of discussing the rationale for one’s
choice of language (for instance, a relationship established in a particular
language between the researcher and the participant), as well as possible
limitations imposed by that choice.
Analyzing content
The next step is analysis of the narrative content, context, and form.
Although in what follows I discuss these analyses in separate subsections, this
choice is made for convenience only: in reality the three are interdependent
and understanding of content is impossible without close analysis of both
context and form.
Unlike traditional content analysis, the approach proposed here encourages
the analyst to consider not only what was said or written but also what was
omitted and why. For instance, in an analysis of the diary she kept
while learning Japanese in Japan, Ogulnick (1999) noted that she had never
mentioned the fact that she was Jewish and never corrected her Japanese
acquaintances who assumed that she was Christian. She attributed
this silence to her desire to fit in and not be further marked as different.
ANETA PAVLENKO 175
Analyzing context
Different approaches to narrative analysis vary in the degree to which they
include context (cf. Riessman 1993). I encourage researchers to consider both
global and local contextual influences on narrative construction. The global
or macro-level of analysis should attend to historic, political, economic, and
cultural circumstances of narrative production. The local or micro-level should
attend to the context of the interview or manuscript writing, and thus to the
influence of language choice, audience, setting, modality, narrative functions,
interactional concerns, and power relations on ways in which speakers and
writers verbalize their experiences. Notably, there is no clear-cut separation
between the two sets of factors (cf. Heller 2001), rather narrative activity
allows us to examine multiple linkages and interdependencies between them.
Several decades of narrative study convincingly demonstrate that
autobiographic narratives are cultural, institutional, and social productions,
they function as a genre and reflect literary conventions, social norms, and
structures of expectation of the place and time in which they are told. These
influences are evident not only in the form but also in the content of
autobiographies and in particular in the arguments and debates in which the
176 AUTOBIOGRAPHIC NARRATIVES AS AL DATA
authors take part and in the master narratives according to or against which
they speak. For instance, immigrant narratives published in the US in the
early twentieth century draw on the trope of the self-made man and on the
rags-to-riches plot to create didactic stories, reflecting the mythology of
individual achievement, prevalent at the time (Pavlenko 2004). Written in
the atmosphere of relative linguistic tolerance, these memoirs rarely discuss
language issues, focusing instead on economic and employment concerns and
cultural assimilation. Later, in the xenophobic atmosphere of World War I
and the post-war years, when the country began to aspire to the ‘one nation,
one language’ ideal, immigrants were forced not only to learn English but
also to abandon their former ethnic and linguistic allegiances. Language
memoirs written in the 1920s and 1930s responded to this shift and
questioned the need for full linguistic assimilation. In turn, the revival of
ethnic and racial consciousness in the 1970s inspired new immigrant
narratives whose authors focused on the links between languages and ethnic,
cultural, and national identities and aspired to construct mixed and hybrid
identities for themselves and their readers (Pavlenko 2001b, 2004).
This example serves to show how narrative analysis can benefit from the
examination of a larger sociohistoric context of narrative production, that is
of ways in which particular narratives are located in time and place and thus
‘written for us by law, literature, politics, and history’ (Zaborowska 1995: x).7
A context-sensitive approach to immigrant narratives is also taken by
Čmejrková (2003), who examined life histories of repatriants from Ukraine
in Czechoslovakia. The participants in her study were members of the Czech
minority in Ukraine, who lived in areas immediately affected by the
Chernobyl disaster. After the Velvet Revolution of 1989 in Czechoslovakia,
the community appealed to the Czech government for help and was
eventually allowed to resettle in Czechoslovakia between the years 1991 and
1993. A comparison of several life history interviews with members of this
community, combined with close attention to the sociohistoric circumstances
of their repatriation, allowed the researcher to identify similarities and
discontinuities between the narratives and to analyze the meaning-making
systems at work. In particular, Čmejrková was able to pinpoint attempts to
project the current situation into the narrative and to reframe the
resettlement prompted by an environmental disaster and a change in
political circumstances as a reunification project long worked for.
Notably, I do not argue that applied linguists are in the business of
determining the ‘truth value’ of particular accounts. At the same time, they
cannot conduct their analyses in a vacuum and treat narrative versions of
reality as reality itself. Rather, narrative analysis in sociolinguistic studies has
to consider larger historical, political, social, and economic circumstances that
shape the narratives and are reflected in them, language ideologies and
discourses that have currency in narrators’ communities and with regard to
which they position themselves, and, last but not least, the setting where
particular versions of narrative experience are produced and the audience
ANETA PAVLENKO 177
they are produced for. The analysts need to be particularly sensitive to the
fact that speakers use linguistic and narrative resources to present themselves
as particular kinds of individuals. In the context of autobiographic interviews,
the preferred portrayals may emphasize ethnic, linguistic, and cultural
loyalties, and interpret one’s own decision-making in the light of these
loyalties, rather than chance or economic circumstances.
Analyzing form
As shown above, context analysis exposes global and local influences on the
content of individual narratives. In turn, analysis of form highlights
linguistic, cultural, and genre influences on ways in which people structure
their life stories (macro-level). It also allows us to examine how storytellers
achieve their interactional goals through particular narrative devices or
lexical choice (micro-level) and illuminates individual creativity and agency
in the presentation of self.
Three approaches to analysis of narrative structure are commonly used in
the field. Story grammar analysis, based on Propp’s (1968) analysis of Russian
fairy tales, examines the degree to which the story is structured around
the explicit goals of the protagonist (setting, initiating event, character’s
internal response and plan, character’s attempts to solve the problem,
consequences) (for application to linguistic autobiographies see Leppänen
and Kalaja 2002). High point analysis, developed by Labov (1972; Labov
and Waletzky 1967), examines narratives in terms of the presence and
elaboration of abstract, orientation, complicating action, evaluation, resolu-
tion, and a coda (for application to personal stories of L2 users, see Rintell
1990). Stanza analysis, proposed by Hymes (1982) and Gee (1991), breaks
narratives into lines and then groups the lines into hierarchical levels, such
as stanzas (a group of lines about a single topic), scenes, and acts, presenting
a narrative as if it were a prose poem (for application to stories by L2 users,
see Maeno 1995).
Cross-linguistic explorations using these frameworks show that the
pervasiveness of narrative does not imply uniformity and that basic elements
of narrative construction, including structural principles, storytelling
conventions and devices, and judgments as to which events are tellable,
differ across speech communities (Chafe 1980; Holmes 1998; Klapproth 2004;
McCabe and Bliss 2003; Minami 2002; Tannen 1982, 1993). As a result, what
is considered to be a ‘normative’ personal narrative or autobiography varies
across speech communities along several dimensions, including organization,
structure, and authorial voice.
In terms of organization, differences among speech communities can be
found in preferred narrative structure. For instance, in contexts where
speakers of Standard English favor chronologically organized personal
narratives, speakers of African-American English or Spanish may prefer
narratives organized thematically or episodically rather than temporally
178 AUTOBIOGRAPHIC NARRATIVES AS AL DATA
CONCLUSIONS
Several characteristics make autobiographic narratives into unique and
appealing foci of applied linguistics inquiry. They are interesting and thus
have aesthetic value and can engage the readers. They are accessible and
thus can appeal to larger audiences. They are also textual and thus have
reflective value for their authors and for the readers who are encouraged to
imagine alternative ways of being in the world. Most importantly, they are
transformative as they shift the power relationship between researchers and
participants, and between teachers and learners, making the object of the
inquiry into the subject and granting the subject both agency and voice.
These characteristics also make autobiographies into dangerous data
sources as their immediacy may force researchers to disregard the line
between life and text reality and to forget that narratives constitute, rather
than reflect, reality. The overview offered here aimed to make clear that
regardless of what type of reality one is interested in, it is quite likely that the
realities of subject, life, and text are not easily separable and those interested
in one aspect still need to be fully cognizant of the other two. Similarly,
I tried to highlight the interdependence between context, content, and form,
and to argue that researchers interested in the content need to take into
consideration the context and the form of the telling.
I have also argued that the stories we tell are never fully our own—they
are co-constructed for us and with us by our interlocutors, real or imagined,
by the time and place in history in which the events portrayed have taken
place and the time and place in which they are told, by the language we
choose for the telling, and by the cultural conventions of the speech
community in which the narrative is located. Consequently, linguistic
ANETA PAVLENKO 181
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am deeply grateful to the editors, Gabriele Kasper and Guy Cook, to Yasuko Kanno and
Gergana Vitanova, and to the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the
earlier version of this paper. All errors and omissions are exclusively my own.
NOTES
1 Granger (2004) and Kramsch (2000) 2 This possibility is made apparent in
offer several useful examples of Kramsch’s (2000) reanalysis of a quote
reanalysis of earlier diary studies from Hinton’s study. Kramsch (2000)
where attention to the language and shows how rhetorical analysis illumi-
structure of the story reveals nates both the discourses that position
another level of depth in the data, the student and ways in which the
neglected in content analysis. For student attempts to break away from
instance, in her analysis of Bailey’s the model minority discourse and to
(1983) diary, Granger (2004) notes craft a voice that is English in code
that the author cannot fully and Vietnamese in style.
express her own difficulties except by 3 Several of these studies are part of
projecting them onto others, e.g. a concerted research program
‘he is using a lot of energy fighting (cf. Franceschini and Miecznikowski
with his own frustrations’, ‘now 2004) and all display an awareness of
I know what ESL students go through’ the ongoing interplay between life,
(Bailey 1983: 74). Granger (2004) also subject, and text reality and commit-
shows how the writer renarrates her ment to analyze not only the content
avoidance of the French class of the narratives but also their form,
and homework, justifying these occa- that is the mise en mots or the
sions as cases where ‘departmental verbalization of participants’ thoughts,
business’ or other things just beliefs, and experiences.
‘came up’ and legitimately interfered 4 Bakhtin’s (1981) ideas also inform
with the learning process. She argues other analyses of linguistic autobio-
that the projection and justification graphies conducted by applied lin-
help the author position herself as guists (Kinginger 2004; Kramsch
a good learner and a victim of 2000; Kramsch and Lam 1999) and
unfortunate circumstances, rather literary scholars (Besemeres 2002,
than as an agent who made conscious 2004). These analyses consider the
decisions to skip class or ignore meanings and voices reflected in the
homework. authors’ lexical and morphosyntactic
182 AUTOBIOGRAPHIC NARRATIVES AS AL DATA
choices, ranging from pronouns and the two versions allows for identifica-
coordinating conjunctions, to tropes tion of discrepancies between the
and metaphors, reported speech, and actual speech events and the learners’
sentence and paragraph structure. perceptions of them. To avoid collec-
5 The situation becomes even more tion of amorphous and unwieldy data,
problematic when participants have Ogulnick (1999: 148, 156) provides a
only limited proficiency in the lan- set of guidelines that structure diary
guage of choice, oftentimes the native entries as descriptions of sociolinguis-
language of the researcher. In her tic events.
defense of interviewing immigrant 7 An example of what happens when
women in Canada in their L2 English, personal narratives are accepted uncri-
rather than through an interpreter, tically, without any consideration for
Kouritzin (2000) argued that inter- the global and local contexts in which
preters fail to aid in understanding, they are produced, comes from Kour-
distance participants, reduce the trust itzin’s (2000) study of immigrant
and privacy of the interview, and may mothers in Canada. To understand
ignore the affective dimensions of linguistic and educational choices of
participants’ speech. This is a valid immigrant mothers, the researcher
argument yet it does not acknowledge conducted life-story interviews with
that in interviews conducted in a 19 women enrolled in ESL classes.
weaker language, information requir- One of the focal participants in the
ing linguistic and narrative complexity study was a Ukrainian woman
may get misrepresented or left out. Oksana, a single mother who left
Even more importantly, the researcher Ukraine for Canada in 1989, leaving
did not consider the possibility that her two sons with relatives in
the language of the interview is not Ukraine. In Canada, Oksana applied
an either/or choice, instead one might for landed immigrant status and had
consider collecting narratives in both to wait for three years for reunifica-
languages of the participants, or at tion with her sons. By 1993, the time
least give the participants an option to of the study, Oksana’s sons were
resort to the native language when finally living with her and she was
necessary (cf. Vitanova 2005). enthusiastically learning English. In
6 As already pointed out above, it is also her analysis of Oksana’s trajectory,
preferable to collect not only narra- Kouritzin (2000) stated that ‘Oksana
tives in the two or more languages, was motivated to leave her country by
but also repeated accounts of an her intense nationalism and her desire
experience in the same language, to keep her Ukrainian spirit alive. She
since these accounts may often sport had been unable to practice her
telling discrepancies. A repeated religion, speak her language, or study
accounts procedure can also be used the history of the Ukrainian people in
in diaries written for purposes of the [former] Soviet Union, and there-
future analysis. For instance, if a fore she was determined to change
class or a conversation have been her geographical circumstances in
video- or audiotaped, the first account order to pass along her private con-
could be written from memory, and victions that ‘‘yes Ukrainian people
the second while replaying the tape smart, intelligent’’ (Oksana: 1) to her
(Ogulnick 1999). The comparison of sons’ (p. 20). We can see that this
ANETA PAVLENKO 183
‘analysis’ does nothing but restate what economic climate, with rapidly increas-
the participant told the researcher. In ing poverty and unemployment and
doing so, it neglects several factual dwindling economic opportunities for
inconsistencies in the participant’s older women. Why is Oksana telling
account. The first such inconsistency a possibly misleading cultural heritage
is the statement about the speaker’s narrative and not an economic depri-
inability to speak her language or study vation one that would be much more
the history of the Ukrainian people. consistent with political and economic
Historically Ukraine has always been a circumstances of the post-Soviet migra-
bilingual country, with Russian domi- tion to the West? If we look closely at
nant in the Eastern part and Ukrainian the context in which the story was
in the West. At the same time, even in collected, we will see the glaring power
the East, Ukrainian speakers had access imbalance between the Canadian
to Ukrainian-language theaters, TV and interviewer and the Ukrainian immi-
radio channels, books, magazines, and grant, afraid that she may be denied
newspapers, and most importantly to permanent status if someone discov-
Ukrainian-language education. During ered that she had emigrated for
the Soviet times, throughout the economic, rather than ideological,
republic, some secondary and higher reasons. It is quite possible that in
education establishments functioned order to keep on the safe side, the
exclusively in Ukrainian and those immigrant woman decided to repro-
that functioned in Russian were still duce her ‘ideological persecution nar-
required to teach Ukrainian language, rative’, told in many institutional
literature, and history. More impor- contexts over her years in Canada.
tantly, by 1989, the time of Oksana’s This story bears a striking resemblance
departure, the USSR was already fall- to those told by countless other
ing apart. On August 24, 1991, Ukraine immigrants who know that in immi-
declared independence and Ukrainian gration interviews they have to
became the only official language of emphasize ethnic, religious, and possi-
the country. By 1993–94, the time of bly linguistic persecution and to down-
the study, the Ukrainian nationalist play the fact that they are looking
revival was well under way, Russian for new economic and employment
had been eradicated from most public opportunities. Unfortunately, the
domains, and the overwhelming researcher adopted Oksana’s artful
majority of institutions and educa- construction without checking the
tional establishments had switched to basic facts, understanding the larger
Ukrainian (Bilaniuk 2005; Wanner background of Soviet and post-Soviet
1998). Hence, it is hard to imagine a migration, or considering an immi-
better place for a committed Ukrainian grant’s view of the interview proce-
than the newly independent Ukraine. dure. As a result, the paper reproduced
Nevertheless, the speaker insists that in rather than analyzed Oksana’s
Canada ‘her language and her customs narrative and missed out on an
would be more welcome than in her opportunity to truly understand her
native Ukraine’ (p. 28). What she does meaning-making systems and the
not mention is how difficult it must motivation behind this woman’s deci-
have been for her to be raising sion to start life ‘from scratch’ in a new
two sons singlehandedly in the new environment.
184 AUTOBIOGRAPHIC NARRATIVES AS AL DATA
REFERENCES
Atkinson, R. 1998. The Life Story Interview. Clandinin, D. and F. Connelly. 2000. Narrative
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative
Bailey, K. 1980. ‘An introspective analysis of an Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
individual language learning experience’ in C̆mejrková, S. 2003. ‘The categories of ‘‘our own’’
R. Scarcella and S. Krashen (eds): Research in and ‘‘foreign’’ in the language and culture of
Second Language Acquisition: Selected Papers of Czech repatriates from the Ukraine,’ Interna-
the Los Angeles Second Language Acquisition tional Journal of the Sociology of Language 162:
Research Forum. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 103–23.
pp. 58–65. Cortazzi, M. 1993. Narrative Analysis. Brighton:
Bailey, K. 1983. ‘Competitiveness and anxiety in Falmer Press.
adult second language learning: Looking at and Crapanzano, V. 1984. ‘Life-histories,’ American
through diary studies’ in H. Seliger and M. Long Anthropologist 86: 953–60.
(eds): Classroom Oriented Research in Second Lan- Crawshaw, R., B. Callen, and K. Tusting. 2001.
guage Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, ‘Attesting the self: Narration and identity
pp. 67–102. change during periods of residence abroad,’
Bakhtin, M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Language and Intercultural Communication 1/2:
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 101–19.
Barthes, R. 1966. ‘Introduction à l’analyse struc- Davies, B. and R. Harré. 1990. ‘Positioning: The
turale des récits,’ Communications 8: 1–27. discursive production of selves,’ Journal for the
Belz, J. 2002. ‘Second language play as a repre- Theory of Social Behavior 20: 43–63.
sentation of the multicompetent self in foreign Denzin, N. 1989. Interpretive Biography. Newbury
language study,’ Journal of Language, Identity, and Park, CA: Sage.
Education 1/1: 13–39. Deprez, Ch. 2004. ‘‘‘Comment j’ai capturé les
Besemeres, M. 2002. Translating One’s Self. mots,’’ Récit d’apprentissage’ [‘‘How I captured
Oxford: Peter Lang. words’’: A learning story] in R. Franceschini
Besemeres, M. 2004. ‘Different languages, differ- and J. Miecznikowski (eds): Leben mit mehreren
ent emotions: Perspectives from autobiographi- Sprachen/Vivre avec plusieurs langues [Living
cal literature,’ Journal of Multilingual and with multiple languages]. Bern: Peter Lang,
Multicultural Development 25/2–3: 140–58. pp. 23–45.
Bilaniuk, L. 2005. Contested Tongues: Language Deslarzes, P. 2004. ‘Between social alienation and
Politics and Cultural Correction in Ukraine. Ithaca, integration: The importance of narrated auto-
NY: Cornell University Press. biography in the study of Italian migration in
Bruner, J. 1987. ‘Life as narrative,’ Social Research Basle’ in R. Franceschini and J. Miecznikowski
54/1: 11–32. (eds): Leben mit mehreren Sprachen/Vivre avec
Calvin, L. 1999. Culture within and around: plusieurs langues [Living with multiple
The language learning stories of adult ESL languages]. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 227–49.
learners in a cross-cultural immersion setting. Dykman, E. 1999. Exploring second language
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of acquisition and acculturation through autobio-
Education, Indiana University. graphical texts: A qualitative study of second
Cameron, D. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. language learners/authors. Unpublished doctoral
London: Sage. dissertation, School of Education, New York
Caratini-Soto, M. 1997. Learning English as a University.
second language in Puerto Rico: The experiences Edwards, D. 1997. Discourse and Cognition.
of a small number of college level adults. London: Sage.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The
Education, New York University. Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
Chafe, W. (ed.) 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual
Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Produc- Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
tion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Franceschini, R. 2003. ‘Unfocussed language
Chafe, W. 1998. ‘Things we can learn from acquisition? The presentation of linguistic
repeated tellings of the same experience,’ situations in biographical narration,’ Forum:
Narrative Inquiry 8/2: 269–85. Qualitative Social Research [On-line journal],
ANETA PAVLENKO 185
4(3), Art. 19. Retrieved 6 January, 2006 from Kinginger, C. 2004. ‘Bilingualism and emotion
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/ in the autobiographical works of Nancy
3–03/3–03franceschini-e.htm. Huston,’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Franceschini, R. and J. Miecznikowski. (eds). Development 25/2–3: 159–78.
2004. Leben mit mehreren Sprachen/Vivre Klapproth, D. 2004. Narrative as Social Practice:
avec plusieurs langues [Living with multiple Anglo-Western and Australian Aboriginal Oral
languages]. Bern: Peter Lang. Traditions. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Gee, J. 1991. ‘A linguistic approach to narrative,’ Kouritzin, S. 2000. ‘Immigrant mothers redefine
Journal of Narrative and Life History 1/1: 15–39. access to ESL classes: Contradiction and ambiva-
Granger, C. 2004. Silence in Second Language Learn- lence,’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
ing: A Psychoanalytic Reading. Clevedon, UK: Development 21/1: 14–32.
Multilingual Matters. Koven, M. 1998. ‘Two languages in the self/the
Hardy, B. 1968. ‘Toward a poetics of fiction,’ Novel self in two languages: French-Portuguese bilin-
2: 5–14. guals’ verbal enactments and experiences of self
Hašová, L. 2004. ‘Eine mitteleuropäische Sprach- in narrative discourse,’ Ethos 26/4: 410–55.
biographie’ [A Central European language Koven, M. 2001. ‘Comparing bilinguals’ quoted
biography]. in R. Franceschini and performances of self and others in tellings of the
J. Miecznikowski (eds): Leben mit mehreren same experience in two languages,’ Language in
Sprachen/Vivre avec plusieurs langues [Living with Society 30: 513–58.
multiple languages]. Bern: Peter Lang, Koven, M. 2002. ‘An analysis of speaker role
pp. 173–86. inhabitance in narratives of personal experi-
Heinz, B. 2001. ‘‘‘Fish in the river’’: Experiences of ence,’ Journal of Pragmatics 34: 167–217.
bicultural bilingual speakers,’ Multilingua 20/1: Koven, M. 2004. ‘Getting ‘‘emotional’’ in two
85–108. languages: Bilinguals’ verbal performance of
Heller, M. 2001. ‘Undoing the macro/micro affect in narratives of personal experience,’
dichotomy: Ideology and categorization in a Text 24/4: 471–515.
linguistic minority school’ in N. Coupland, Kramsch, C. 2000. Linguistic Identities at the Bound-
S. Sarangi, and C. Candlin (eds): Sociolinguistics aries. Paper presented at the AAAL Annual
and Social Theory. Harlow, UK: Pearson Educa- Convention, Vancouver, Canada, 12 March.
tion, pp. 212–34. Kramsch, C. and W. E. Lam. 1999. ‘Textual
Hinton, L. 2001. ‘Involuntary language loss identities: The importance of being non-native’
among immigrants: Asian-American linguistic in G. Braine (ed.): Non-native Educators in English
autobiographies’ in J. Alatis and A. Tan (eds): Language Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Language in Our Time: Bilingual Education and Erlbaum, pp. 57–72.
Official English, Ebonics and Standard English, Labov, W. 1972. Language in the Inner City:
Immigration and the Unz Initiative. Georgetown Studies in the Black English Vernacular.
University Round Table on Languages and Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Linguistics 1999. Washington, DC: Georgetown Labov, W. and J. Waletzky. 1967. ‘Narrative
University Press, pp. 203–52. analysis: Oral versions of personal Experience’
Hokenson, J. 1995. ‘Intercultural autobiogra- in J.Helm (ed.): Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts.
phy,’ a/b: Auto/Biography Studies 10/1: 92–113. Seattle: University of Washington, pp. 12–44.
Holmes, J. 1998. ‘Narrative structure: Some con- Leppänen, S. and P. Kalaja. 2002. ‘Autobiogra-
trasts between Maori and Pakeha story-telling,’ phies as constructions of EFL learner identities
Multilingua 17/1: 25–57. and experiences’ in E. Kärkkäinen, J. Haines,
Hymes, D. 1982. ‘Narrative form as a ‘‘grammar’’ and T. Lauttamus (eds): Studia Linguistica et
of experience: Native American and a glimpse Litteraria Septentrionalia. Studies Presented to
of English,’ Journal of Education 162: 121–42. Heikki Nyyssönen. Oulu: Oulu University Press,
Javier, R., F. Barroso and M. Muñoz. 1993. pp. 189–203.
‘Autobiographical memory in bilinguals,’ Linde, C. 1993. Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 22/3: 319–38. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kanno, Y. 2003. Negotiating Bilingual and McCabe, A. and L. Bliss. 2003. Patterns of Narrative
Bicultural Identities: Japanese Returnees Betwixt Discourse: A Multicultural, Life Span Approach.
Two Worlds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
186 AUTOBIOGRAPHIC NARRATIVES AS AL DATA
A. Blackledge (eds): Negotiation of Identities in Schank, R. and R. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans,
Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilin- Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human
gual Matters, pp. 334–67. Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Pavlenko, A. 2005. Emotions and Multilingualism. Erlbaum.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, D. 2003. ‘Linguistics and history: Oral
Pavlenko, A. in press. ‘Narrative analysis in the history as discourse’ in D. Tannen and J. Alatis
study of bi- and multilingualism’ in M. Moyer (eds): Linguistics, Language, and the Real World:
and Li Wei (eds): The Blackwell Guide to Research Discourse and Beyond. Georgetown University
Methods in Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Round Table on Languages and Linguistics,
Pavlenko, A. and J. Lantolf. 2000. ‘Second 2001. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
language learning as participation and the (re) Press, pp. 84–113.
construction of selves’ in J. Lantolf (ed.): Schmidt, R. and S. Frota. 1986. ‘Developing basic
Sociocultural Theory and Second Language conversational ability in a second language:
Learning. New York: Oxford University Press, A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese’
pp. 155–77. in R. Day (ed.): Talking to Learn: Conversation in
Polanyi, L. 1995. ‘Language learning and Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA:
living abroad: Stories from the field’ in B. Freed Newbury House.
(ed.): Second Language Acquisition in a Study Schumann, F. 1980. ‘Diary of a language learner:
Abroad Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John A further analysis’ in R. Scarcella and S. Krashen
Benjamins, pp. 271–91. (eds): Research in Second Language Acquisition:
Propp, V. 1928/1968. The Morphology of the Folk- Selected Papers of the Los Angeles Second Language
tale. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Acquisition Research Forum. Rowley, MA:
Protassova, E. 2004. Fennorossy: Zhizn’ i upotre- Newbury House, pp. 51–7.
blenie jazyka [Finno-Russians: Life and language Schumann, F. and J. Schumann. 1977. ‘Diary
use]. St Petersburg, Russia: Zlatoust. of a language learner: An introspective study
Ricoeur, P. 1990. Soi-même comme un autre [Self as of second language learning’ in H. Brown,
the other]. Paris: Editions du Seuil. R. Crymes, and C. Yorio (eds): Teaching
Riessman, C. 1991. ‘When gender is not enough: and Learning: Trends in Research and Practice.
Women interviewing women’ in J. Lorber and Selected Papers from the 1977 TESOL Convention.
S. Farrell (eds): The Social Construction of Gender. Washington, DC: TESOL Georgetown
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 217–36. University, 1977.
Riessman, C. 1993. Narrative Analysis. Newbury Schumann, J. 1997. The Neurobiology of Affect in
Park, CA: Sage. Language. Boston: Blackwell.
Rintell, E. 1990. ‘That’s incredible: Stories of Silverstein, M. 1993. ‘Metapragmatic discourse
emotion told by second language learners and and metapragmatic function’ in J. Lucy (ed.):
native speakers’ in R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metaprag-
and S. Krashen (eds): Developing Communicative matics. New York: Cambridge University Press,
Competence in a Second Language. Boston, MA: pp. 33–58.
Heinle & Heinle, pp. 75–94. Strauss, A. and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualita-
Rosa, M. 1997. Personal narratives of learning tive Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
English as a second language as experienced by Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
four college students in Puerto Rico. Unpub- Tabouret-Keller, A. 2004. ‘Mutations sociolin-
lished doctoral dissertation, School of Educa- guistiques dans deux familles chinoises alliées,
tion, New York University. de 1890 à nos jours’ [Sociolinguistic changes in
Rumelhart, D. 1975. ‘Notes on a schema for two related Chinese families from 1890 to pres-
stories’ in D. Bobrow and A. Collins (eds): ent times] in R. Franceschini and J. Mieczni-
Representation and Understanding: Studies in kowski (eds): Leben mit mehreren Sprachen/Vivre
Cognitive Science. New York: Academic Press. avec plusieurs langues [Living with multiple
Santana, J. 1999. Americanization: A Dominican languages]. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 3–22.
immigrant’s autobiographical study of cultural Tannen, D. 1982. ‘Spoken and written narrative
and linguistic learning. Unpublished doctoral in English and Greek’ in D. Tannen (ed.):
dissertation, School of Education, New York Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse.
University. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 21–41.
188 AUTOBIOGRAPHIC NARRATIVES AS AL DATA
Tannen, D. 1993. ‘What’s in a frame? Surface Vitanova, G. 2004. ‘Gender enactments in immi-
evidence for underlying expectations’ in grants’ discursive practices: Bringing Bakhtin to
D. Tannen (ed.): Framing in Discourse. the dialogue,’ Journal of Language, Identity, and
New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–56. Education 3/4: 261–77.
Todorov, T. 1987. ‘Structural analysis of narra- Vitanova, G. 2005. ‘Authoring the self in a non-
tive’ in R. Davis (ed.): Contemporary Literary native language: A dialogic approach to agency
Criticism: Modernism Through Post-structuralism. and subjectivity’ in J. K. Hall, G. Vitanova, and
London: Longman, pp. 323–30. L. Marchenkova (eds): Dialogue with Bakhtin
Toolan, M. 2001. Narrative: A Critical Linguistic on Second and Foreign Language Learning:
Introduction. 2nd edn. Routledge. New Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Treichel, B. 2004. ‘Suffering from one’s own Erlbaum, pp. 149–69.
multilingualism: Biographical processes of suf- Wanner, K. 1998. Burden of Dreams: History
fering and their linguistic expression in narra- and Identity in Post-Soviet Ukraine. State College,
PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
tive interviews with Welsh speakers of
Wong, C. S. L. 1991. ‘Immigrant autobiography:
Welsh and English’ in R. Franceschini and
Some questions of definition and Approach’ in
J. Miecznikowski (eds): Leben mit mehreren
J. Eakin (ed.): American Autobiography: Retrospect
Sprachen/Vivre avec plusieurs langues [Living
and Prospect. University of Wisconsin Press,
with multiple languages]. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 142–70.
pp. 47–74. Wortham, S. 2001. Narratives in Action:
Tse, L. 2000a. ‘Student perceptions of foreign A Strategy for Research and Analysis. New York:
language study: A qualitative analysis of foreign Teachers’ College Press.
language autobiographies,’ Modern Language Wortham, S. and M. Locher. 1996. ‘Voicing on
Journal 84/1: 69–84. the news: An analytic technique for studying
Tse, L. 2000b. ‘The effects of ethnic identity media bias,’ Text 16: 557–85.
formation on bilingual maintenance and devel- Yelenevskaya, M. and L. Fialkova. 2003.
opment: An analysis of Asian American narra- ‘From ‘‘muteness’’ to ‘‘eloquence’’: Immigrants’
tives,’ International Journal of Bilingual Education narratives about languages,’ Language Awareness
and Bilingualism 3/3: 185–200. 12/1: 30–48.
Tuominen, A. 1998. ‘Who decides the Zaborowska, M. 1995. How we Found America:
home language? A look at multilingual families,’ Reading Gender through East European Immigrant
International Journal of the Sociology of Language Narratives. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
140: 59–76. Carolina Press.